Dravidian and Mongolian

Dravidian Speaking Hun

Many of the so called Huns/Mongolians who invaded India were speaking Dravidian languages. these Huns were descendants of the Dravidians who spread from the Indus Valley to East Asia in ancient times. below are so pictures of these "Mongoloids" who spoke Dravidian languages.




Vacek (1983) has made an exhaustive study of Dravidian‑Mongolian similarities. He has found cognate verbal noun or temporal suffixes and plural suffixes. Vacek (1983) compared Dravidian and Mongolian lexical items and established several sound correspondences. Recently Vacek (1983) discussed the affinities between 120 Mongolian and Dravidian verbs that show full correspondence.

Vacek (1987) believes that Altaic and Dravidian has an axial relationship. He has based his theroy on the geographical distribution of these languages along the north‑south axis between the Altaic and Uralian languages.

Due to the lack of a visible ethnic relationship between the speakers of Ural‑Altaic and Dravidian, many researchers find it almost impossible to accept that a genetic relationship exist between these languages. Although we may not be able to accept that these languages are genetically related the linguistic evidence suggest extensive bilingualism in ancient Central Asia, this is supported by the mixed heritage visible in the faces of many Turkic speakers.

The Buryat word for mare is guun/gu. This is interesting because it has affinity to Dravidian words for hose including:

Tamil: kutirai

Telugu: gurramu

Kol: gurramu










The linguistic data suggest that the Mongolian and Dravidian terms are very closely related. The sound shift of Dravidian /k/ to Mongolian /g/ is not uncommon in many possible Mongolian and Dravidian cognates. For example a comparison of Mongolian cognates from Vacek (1981) demonstrate clearly this should shift:



Mongolian Tamil



toguri tikiri to circle

tolugai eluka rat

anggai anka to open mouth

egeci akka elder sister

inege naku to smile, laugh



Disagreement surrounds the use of the horse in Central Asia. Although some researchers believe that the domesticated horse was first introduced to Central Asia by the Indo‑Europeans. This theory has little archaeological support. The horse in Central Asia, like the ass, may have been mainly used as a source of food until 500 BC, by the Central Asian pastoralist groups. Full pastoral nomadic exploitation strategies does not appear in

Central Asia until after 500 BC.

V.M. Masson (1989:783) believes that horse domestication and riding developed in the 1st millennium BC on the steppe. Francefort (1985:386) views the intensive use of horses as an Iron Age innovation associated with semi‑nomadism.

Although we can not positively date the domestication of the horse in Central Asia, by the 4th millennium BC horse remains have been found on the steppes. Horse bones have come from the Batay site and the Marupol culture. The Mariupol culture is a group of short lived settlements in forest‑steppe zones along the Dnieper river. Around 80 percent of the animal remains from

Mariupol are of horse bones. (Dergachev 1989)

Horse bones dating to the 4th and 3rd millenniums BC have been found at Batay. Around 95 percent of the faunal remains at Batay, are horses. At Batay, local Central Asians made horse bone tools.

It would appear that most of the early horsemen in Central Asia came from Iran, rather than southern Russia. The nomad artisans of the 3rd millennium BC steppes, show affinity to artisans from Iran. (David 1986) During this period pastures provided grazing and herds with abundant food. (Masson 1986:80)

IN the 2nd millennium BC the horse was extensively exploited throughout Central Asia.(David 1986:486) For example, at the 17th‑16th century BC site of Sinatasha, there are horse and chariot burials. These horsemen made fine bronzehead spears.

The Dravidian language is especially close to Tocharian A (TA). It would appear that Tocharian B (TB) , has been greatly influenced by the Indo‑ European languages. For example, there is labialization of labiovelars before voiceless consonants in TB.

In TA on the otherhand there are few traces of an earlier distinction between labiovelars and velar plus *w, clusters. For example:

Horse: TB yakwe, Old English eoh, Latin equus

> *yakwe PIE *ekwos Sanskrit asvas, Old

Irish ech

TA yuk



Dog: TB kwem< PIE *kwena < PIE acc. *kwonm (Sanskrit svanam )



The TA terms for Central Asian domesticates agree with Dravidian terms.

1. Tocharian A ku dog

Dravidian kona id.

Kannanda Kunni id.

Tamil Kukkal id.

" Kuran id.

Telugu Kukka id.

Malayam Cokkan id.



2. Tocharian A yu horse

Tamil ivuli id.

Brahui hulli id.

Telugu payyoli id.



3. Tocharian A ko bovine

Toda kor id.

Dravidian kode id.

Kolami ku.te id.

Tulugu kode id.

Kolami konda,konde id.

Tamil kali id.

Kananda gonde id.

Gadba konde id.

Gondi Konda bullock



As you can see from the above the Dravidians and Tocharian A group share many terms for animals, e.g., 0 ku‑na # 'dog'__/ Toch. 0 ku #; 0 kode # 'cow', Toch. 0 ko #; and 0 ivuli # 'horse' Toch. 0 yuk #.

Many researchers may dispute the affinity between Dravidian 0 ivuli # and Tocharian A 0 yuk # 'horse'. Yet the identification of Tocharian A yuk, to Dravidian is much more supportable than the PIE root for horse. This results from the fact that there are five different Proto‑Indo‑European (PIE) roots for horse. This multitude of PIE roots for horse makes these terms inconclusive for the PIE lexicon. They also support the view that the horse was not domesticated by the Indo‑Europeans.

References:


Vacek,J.1978. "The problem of the genetic relationship of the Mongolian

and Dravidian languages". ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 46:141‑151.



_______.1983. "Dravido‑Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian Verbal Bases

. JOURNAL OF TAMIL STUDIES 23: 1‑17.



_______. 1987. "The Dravido‑Altaic Relationship" . ARCHIV ORIENTALNI 55:

134‑139.




It is obvious to anyone with a mind that the Dravidian people spread horseback riding among the Central Asians